Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:45:21 -0600 | From | "Latchesar Ionkov" <> | Subject | Re: [V9fs-developer] [GIT PULL] 9p Patches for 2.6.23 merge window |
| |
The original patchset had three patches:
1. Renames all functions and macros 2. Moves the header files from fs/9p to include/net/9p and updates the C files with the new header locations 3. Moves the C files from fs/9p to net/9p
Unfortunately the three patches were applied as a single one in Eric's repository and made tracking of the changes harder. We will be more careful next time.
Thanks for you comments, Lucho
On 7/16/07, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > > On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, Latchesar Ionkov wrote: > > > > I thought that it is not a good idea to keep the v9fs_ prefix for code > > that is in different places (fs/9p and net/9p). If keeping the old > > prefix is more acceptable, I can create a new patch without the > > "v9fs_"->"p9_" renames. > > It's fine, I don't care *that* much, and I already pulled. If it had been > something more central, I'd have rejected it, but soemthing as specialized > as the Plan9 fs, I just wanted to point out that this is now how we should > do things. > > In other words: when doing renames it is generally *much* nicer to do a > 100% rename (perhaps with just _trivial_ changes to make it compile - the > include statements etc change, and maybe you want to change the name in > the comment header too). > > Doing "move the code and change it at the same time" is considered bad > form. Movement diffs are much harder to read anyway (a traditional diff > will show it as a new-file + delete, of course), so the general rule is: > > - move code around _without_ modifying it, so that code movement (whether > it's a whole file, or just a set of functions between files) doesn't > really introduce any real changes, and is easier to look through the > changes. > > - do the actual changes to the code as a separate thing. > > This should be true in just about *any* development model, and it's > especially true in Linux, where patches are the main way people > communicate. > > And when using git, the whole "keep code movement separate from changes" > has an even more fundamental reason: git can track code movement (again, > whether moving a whole file or just a function between files), and doing a > "git blame -C" will actually follow code movement between files. It does > that by similarity analysis, but it does mean that if you both move the > code *and* change it at the same time, git cannot see that "oh, that > function came originally from that other file", and now you get worse > annotations about where code actually originated. > > So next time, please don't move code and change it at the same time. > > Linus > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |